Well I’m not sure you can say Persephone was cruel to her children… But leaving your children in a house that is in deplorable condition to go party it up in NYC is pretty stupid… But cruel? Eh…
Nope, dropzone ole buddy, it sure didn’t.
Butt Heather Locklear really is smokin’…
I just hate to think what Tommy did to it.
From Zotti’s OP:
So, HighSky, while I agree with you that it’s a good idea, looks like Ed already beat you to the punch.
You know what Heather needs to do? Join the cast of “Sex and the City.” Then there would be the possiblity of full-frontal Locklear nudity.
Eh, t’hell with Heather boobies, I miss the cat fights!
So, dropzone, I take it that you failed to read the portion of my post in which I stated that I was employing hyperbole and that I was not comparing Persephone’s situation to pedophilia?
dantheman, to whom I was responding, understood what I was talking about. Why couldn’t you?
Kindly read a post, the whole post, before you respond to it. Might make things easier.
No offense, DAVE, but this is just silly. Nothing on these boards would likely be admissible as evidence, if only because this is an anonymous board. If I had indeed confessed to pedophilia, it would not be admissible, because you would be unable to demonstrate that I actually wrote the confession in the first place (I post from my office, where my computer is accessible to several others).
But more to the point, as Xploder noted, this isn’t a court. Court rules of evidence are extremely strict in comparison to the level of evidence we rely upon to make judgments and decisions in our daily life. We, as a matter of routine, base judgments and decisions upon speculation, informed guesses, and incomplete evidence. If we didn’t, we’d never be able to make a judgment or decision.
Sua
We get plenty of cat fights here, thankewverymuch. Plus there’s a poster named Cat Fight.
Not good enough dantheman, unless someone gets thrown into the swimming pool.
We don’t have a pool. :::sigh:::
Jeepers cripes! Diane mentioned me by name. Is this the same as being smote? Smited? Smithied? Struck down with a great and furious anger?
I’m going to nap now. I just pray they’ve lost the keys to the closet where the branding iron is stored…
But Sua, a hyperbolic response and a false comparison, even when admitted, are a nice way to blow off steam but add nothing of value to a debate, especially one that presses as many hot buttons as this one. I know nobody expects me to add anything of value to a debate but we expect BETTER from you.
Come’re dantheman, lemme lick ya.
Sign me up as another “mhendo is right on” supporter.
SuaSponte, while this is not a courtroom, the whole thread reads like a witch-trial nonetheless. At times at least 
Regarding the new policy that moderators aren’t allowed to pit other posters: Shame!
If Dex had abused his moderator privileges, for example first flamed and then banned Persephone, I could understand the commotion. As it is, he’s perfectly in line in my book. What’s more, he is only human and it’s quite natural to lash out from time to time. Plus, as a fellower poster, I would assume that he is still entitled to his own point of view.
Be that as it may:
If mods are ever again allowed to participate in threads where another poster is pitted, drop me a line and I’ll gladly open those threads
Re: Melrose Place - From the Aaron Spelling shows, I favoured Beverly Hills 90210, but stopped watching when Shannon Doherty quit. Same with Charmed.
Optihut, if you feel that this thread sometimes reads like a witch hunt… what do you think of the other thread, then?
Diane… yowwwwwrll.
Well, apparently you not only missed Sua’s reference to hyperbole, you also missed my reference to irony.
So does this mean you would advocate banning all flaming on these Boards? Maybe the eradication altogether of the BBQ Pit?
And would you, for example, extend this courtesy to people that have nothing to do with these boards? Hundreds of threads are started flaming strangers that we read about in news stories–people who start forest fires, leave their kids in cars, give their lovers HIV, and, yes, have their children removed from the house by CPS. In these and a thousand other situations, we flame people based on incomplete information. Are you saying that in all your 5,500 posts you’ve never been guilty of this? Because if you have, isn’t it a bit silly to start moaning about our general lack of civilization over this one issue?
And again i ask those who are advocating special treatment for people that they’ve met in real life: are you willing to provide a list of such people so that we’ll know when you’re speaking your mind, and when you’re simply deferring to the privileges of friendship?
Melrose Place- the only good thing to happen to that place was the bomb.
Thoughts:
-
Too much sharing about your private life can be a bad thing. Once you post something you have invited comment. Especially in the Pit. Sometimes being a little vague is a good thing.
-
My admiration for the principals of the issue has increased. Both parties, and the Administration, have handled themselves with restraint and well thought out posts.
-
My disdain for some of the secondary parties has increased marketedly. A few people have not distinguished themselves at all. In hindsight, I hope a few Dopers are embarrassed by their posts.
-
I believe the Mods/Admins should be able to criticize other posters in original threads as long as they make it explictly clear that the “Mod hat is off” Will they be able to join Pit threads in progress and post much of the same content as if they started the OP themselves?
-
While I support the right for others, if I was ever a Mod here (I know, not likely) I wouldn’t do it. Too fraught with issues for my tastes.
-
I still remember the Melrose Place theme- does that make me a bad person?
This is hyperbole, right? I think I’m getting good at this.
I think drop’s point was that if one feels that one is good friends with one other, one probably shouldn’t feel obligated to drag their friend into a Pit thread. It doesn’t matter if one has met the other one or not. I happen to think some people on here are very nice indeed, and I would be pretty upset with them and myself if they began a Pit thread aimed at me.
I’m overgeneralizing, though. But then, I think you were, too.
Actually, what i mean to clarify, it’s not thatt we couldn;t participate in a pit thread. We just couldn’t pit a user like persephone. We could pit the guy who keyed my car, the asshole who hacked our website twice, but we couldn’t pit an individual that we disagreed with ourselves.
~SKY~
No, but I knew after the fact that I should’ve thrown in a smilie or a winkie to let you know I was playfully going with your suggestion regardless of your intent. I’ll act on that impulse next time because I forget that many people here, especially the newer ones, tend to take me more seriously than they should. **
Weeeelllll, it IS a position I’ve held for three years now. The Pit is one of two primary sources of ill will on this board and, unlike Great Debates, exists solely as a place to vent anger.**
That’s where my BAN THE PIT! idea falls down because it is a valuable outlet for that sort of thing. Instead, I must try to promote graciousness and understanding towards our friends and neighbors here. **
Of course I have, but I try to limit it to outsiders. **
You have presented a tu quoque fallacy. That I have sinned is no reason for me to give up a quest for sinlessness in both myself and others.**
You misunderstand. I do not Pit friends because they are my friends and I may defend them because they are my friends rather than some heartfelf support of their position. That they are MY friends has no bearing on whether or not YOU should Pit them, but be prepared for me to defend them if I feel you are being unfair.
Wring’s take on this is the correct one. If you are going to post something stunningly repellent to most people about yourself or your lifestyle many (possibly most) people who will simply react viscerally to this nastiness instead of trying to figure out all the contextual angles.
Just from my sort memory of some posts here over the past two years there are fairly popular non-newbie posters who have posted here about -
Being an unrepentant young hardcore drug addict and bragging about the enormous quantity of narcotics they took -
Living with children in a incredibly dirty and cluttered home with cat feces and spray everywhere (not Persephone) -
Making fairly nasty catty comments to their spouse about another transgendered doper at a doper party they all attended obviously being “not being a real woman” -
…and I’m sure there are lots of others I’m blotting out of my mind. In each case they received horrified and/or censuring comments from other dopers. If something shocks someone’s sensibilities they are unlikely to submit it for approval to their online or IRL peer group before they post. The bottom line is if you don’t want people to post visceral gut reactions to self described awful situations or bad behavior don’t put it on the board.
::sigh:: You still haven’t read my original post, it appears. It wasn’t a “false comparison” - it wasn’t a comparison at all. dantheman had postulated that one should only respond to what an OPer wants to talk about, and should not address other matters raised by the OPer. I presented a hypothetical that, IMO, demonstrated that dantheman’s postulation was incorrect.
The fact that dantheman gave a thoughtful response to hypothetical demonstrates that my post did in fact add something “of value” to the debate.
I think my post added “nothing of value” only to those with low reading comprehension scores, or those who respond without fully reading a post.
Sua